(Name withheld) , of  Mona Vale NSW, made the following submission on the project:

Proposed amendment to parking provisions for boarding houses: ARHSEPP

Increasing the requirement for parking helps in a moderate way, but it
does not take other factors into account.
How many boarding houses already exist in the street?
How many on street parking spaces are available in the street?
How many available parking spaces are available in this street at 8pm
in an evening?
A new boarding house can still become a large traffic issue even with
0.5 carparking spaces per dwelling if the street already has a parking
problem and there are no additional spaces available on the street at
8pm.
Most people have cars, so if two young people both who own cars
co-habitat in one room/apartment then they have already taken up the
quota for 4 apartments.
If the NSW Govt insists on pushing for this style of medium density or
increased density living in R2 areas or other areas where this
increased density was never envisaged then they need to ensure the
street and area have all the proper infrastructure to cope.
If there are currently 50 people living in a street and a boarding
house is proposed with 100 rooms, then the number of persons in a
quiet residential street has suddenly more than doubled and the
boarding house will dominate the street. The street flow, pedestrian
traffic, noise and everything will go up in conjunction with the
dominance of this one new dwelling.
There should be a restriction on the number of boarding houses allowed
in one street, depending on the length of the street, existing number
of dwellings, number of free car parking, number of people already
living in the street etc. These should be measurable statistics which
ensure proper planning.
All these SEPP Affordable housing and Seniors Housing are used as
re-zoning by stealth, which means that were there used to be LEP plans
, long term plans by council and community for character , zoning,
types of residences and what could be built where, this is now
overridden by random adhoc development decisions pushed by where a
developer feels it is the most profitable to build.
A person who has spent a lot of money to buy and has a torrens title
registered property title has done their research and believes that
there is security in the zoning, should then not get a shock because
the nature and character of their street can and will be changed by
random development decisions to add more density into their street.
Where is then the guarantee that we all used to have from buying into
a specific zone or area? These SEPP laws are flawed and need further
work, with much more detailed definitions in the "definitions"
section, which tighter standards and with more coordination with
councils to plan together , using an LEP, as to where is and where is
not suitable appropriate places for boarding houses and higher density
living.
It is not fair on existing communities to shatter some people's lives
when their quiet R2 street suddenly totally changes due to a
dominating boarding house (or more than one) development.